IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while convictions can be upheld, sentences may be adjusted based on the duration of pre-sentence custody and the circumstances surrounding the trial.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 23.04.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No.9/2004 by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioners’ appeal, upheld the judgment dated 22.03.1996 passed in Cr. Regular Case No.466/1988 by learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under:-

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.04.1988, the complainant Harlal has lodged an FIR at Police Station Banera inter-alia alleging that last night he along with his wife and brother-in-law were sleeping in his house. In the preceding night, the accused-petitioners trespassed the complainant’s house and stolen some gold & silver ornaments, some clothes & shoes etc. and fled away. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused petitioners for offences under Section 457 & 380 IPC and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.03.1996 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.

7. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.04.2004. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.

8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1988 and out of total sentence of three years’ R.I., the accused petitioners have already served about 1 month and 7 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

10. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners.

11. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1988 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of about 1 month and 7 days in custody out of three years’ of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

12. Accordingly,